Inside The Dems' Shadow Party(How they're using soft money and private groups..)

Business Week ^

[milestogo]

In 2002, as campaign-finance reform was about to become law, a few savvy Democratic activists saw the future -- and it was potentially devastating. The problem: While the Democratic Party raised $520 million in the 2000 election cycle, nearly half of it came in big-buck "soft-money" donations that the McCain-Feingold Act would all but eliminate. In the upcoming Presidential election, the Dems would be even more badly outgunned by the GOP, which in 2000 pulled in $712 million -- but only $246 million of it in soft money. To make an end run around the new campaign law, these behind-the-scenes players rushed to set up political committees that can legally collect soft money, pay for issue ads, and encourage voter turnout.

[FreedomPoster]

Should be subtitled "How they're using soft money and private groups to sidestep CFR/McCain-Feingold". Because Dems don't have to play by the rules.

>>The downside: They cannot give to candidates or be directly connected to a political party.

Yeah, right. They're just totally independent entities, with no overall coordination. Sure.

[Just mythoughts]

Looks like the lying crooked liberals have studied the method of operation used by organized "terrorists", for their funding activities. No wonder the clintons wanted to make terrorists activities a matter of "law". These lying crooked liberals own the "justice" system.

Sleeper cells of lying crooked liberals, hidden away at home and abroad, each charged with their own task, to destroy, and take power.

[steve50]

It's a bad law. Conservatives should be calling for it's repeal, not wanting to make it more powerful. Have we forgotten how much we hated CFR already? I guess the principle of free speech doesn't matter if it's abolition hurts the enemy more than us.

[FreedomPoster]

I don't disagree with you at all. It is a horrible law, and it worries me greatly that the Supremes found it passed Constitutional muster. But if everyone is supposed to play by the rules, they ought to play by the rules.

[steve50]

Laws in violation of the Constitution are to be opposed, not expanded because we think they benefit our interests. We were promised a veto of this, not an interpetation that would favor us and gag our opposition. Free speech is not a partisan issue.

[pageonetoo]

...Alvin Anderson, a 48-year-old former Winn-Dixie ( ) supermarket worker, was on long-term disability after his arm was crushed by a forklift in 1991. Then last December, a friend introduced him to Voices for Working Families, a 527 set up by unions to register minorities. Today, Anderson guides about 40 mostly minority canvassers as they go house to house in primarily black and Hispanic Miami neighborhoods. While Anderson says his canvassers are largely locals who know the community, it's still hard work. They earn $8 an hour and go out in pairs for two four-hour shifts a day, with each canvasser taking one side of a street.

I wonder if he is getting a total disability check from the US of A, AND his $8 per hour wages...

[pageonetoo]

...they ought to play by the rules.

and cows will fly!

[Robert A Cook PE]

Yep, no coordination there at all.

(Just the people running each group are the same.)

So, tell me again, just WHY any republican voted for McCain Feingold?

We know McCain would have bolted the party on its veto, or failure, but what have they gained?

[Gen. Longstreet]

Who says that the Democrats are not playing by the rules? Just because they've found a way to exploit the system and the Republicans haven't (why aren't our guys devoting their energies to getting our allies involved?) doesn't mean that they aren't playing by the rules.

If you take advantage of legal tax deductions to lower your income tax, you're playing by the rules. Same here. Remember what opponents of McCain-Feingold said - that if it passed, this type of legal evasion would be exactly what would happen. If this "loophole" is closed, what makes you think another won't be found?

[CyberAnt]

My my how cynical .. you mean the meeting between George Soros and John Kerry is something sinister ..?? /sarcasm

And .. the very fact they're meeting is very troublesome .. there should be NO CONNECTION between any Soros organization and the Kerry campaign. However, we know there is and we know they are coordinating their campaign. I just wish we could get somebody on the inside to expose them.

[piasa]

Something's up- there's a report the FBI raided Soros' Indymedia. Took their servers.

[CyberAnt]

Really! Where did you hear that ..??